An article on the front page of the New York Times yesterday reported on the pressure some major corporations—such as Microsoft— put on Congress and the administration to have a tax break implemented to make it cheaper for them to bring their money back to the states.

What the corporations and their lobbyists are asking for is known as a repatriation holiday, which would bring the tax rate on profits returned to the states down to about 5 percent from 35 percent for one year.

Here's a look at the influence efforts behind the names and corporations mentioned in the piece:

• Apple made $165,848 in campaign contributions for the 2009-10 election cycle. The technology giant reported spending just over $3 million in lobbying money between the years 2009 and 2010 with $560,00 of that money going to Capital Tax Partners. Capital Tax Partners regularly lobbies on tax related issues. For the first quarter of 2011, the company has reported paying Capital Tax Partners $80,000.
• Microsoft made $4.4 million in campaign contributions during the 2009-2010 cycle and reported spending $13.6 million on lobbying for those same years.
• Google made $1.4 million in campaign contributions in 2009-10 and reported spending $9.1 million lobbying Congress.
• Kevin Brady, a R-Texas, received just over $1 million in campaign contributions for the 2009-10 election cycle.

An article published in Business Insider reports on a lower-profile corporation that also lobbies and make contributions to influence Washington. The article details Celanese Corporation's appointment of a new vice president. Here's a look at the global chemical producer's influence profile:

• Celanese Corporation made $31,562 in campaign contributions during the 2009-10 election cycle and spent $160,000 lobbying Congress those same years.

‘Influence Explored’ takes an article from the day’s headlines and exposes the influential ways of entities mentioned in the article. Names and corporations are run through Sunlight’s influence tracking tools such as Influence Explorer and Transparency Data to remind readers of the money that powers Washington.

Two of the biggest proponents of net neutrality rules for broadband providers involved in closed door congressional committee negotiations have hired 112 former government officials to lobby as Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have both pushed new broadband Internet policies.

For the first three months of 2010, seventy-four percent of the lobbyists hired by both Google* and Microsoft have previous experience in government, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbyist disclosure forms. This is a very similar number when compared to the percentage of former government officials hired to lobby for the top six telecommunications organizations.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation and the House Committee on Energy & Commerce are holding meetings with industry and consumer organizations in response to a series of actions by the FCC including a court decision that blocked the FCC's attempted implementation of net neutrality rules. Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The committees held their first meeting last Friday and plan to host another meeting on July 2.

Google and Microsoft are spending the most on lobbying among the pro-net neutrality organizations invited to the behind the scenes discussions with the two committees.

According to first quarter lobbying disclosures, the two companies have spent a combined $2.1 million on lobbying. By comparison, the two lobbying spenders opposed to net neutrality that were invited to the congressional meetings shelled out $10.5 million in the first quarter of 2010.

Despite spending far less than organizations opposed to net neutrality, Google and Microsoft have fielded a quality team of lobbyists with experience working for important lawmakers and on crucial committees.

Combined the companies have hired thirteen former staffers of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation or members of the committee and nine former staffers of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce or their members.

These lobbyists include Barry LaSala, the former chief of staff to the Senate committee's number two Democrat Sen. John Kerry, who lobbies for Microsoft. LaSala also lobbies for net neutrality opponent Verizon.

Andy Scott Wright, lobbying for Google, worked previously as the Chief of Staff to Rep. Rick Boucher, chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher is leading the meetings for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.

The representatatives in the closed door congressional meetings for both Google and Microsoft have experience on the committees. Google’s Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and Microsoft’s Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

Other Internet companies supporting net neutrality might be spending far less than Google and Microsoft, but they are also largely hiring former government officials to lobby for them.

Over eighty percent of the lobbyists retained by both eBay and Amazon.com—of these two only Amazon.com is engaged in the congressional meetings—have experience in government.

(*Disclosure: Google senior manager Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation. Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation, but no longer works for Google.)

Last Friday, two congressional committees held closed door discussions with 31 representatives from industry and activist groups to discuss writing a new broadband Internet policy, largely focused on whether and how to implement net neutrality rules, into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While the meeting contained more proponents of net neutrality, opponents of implementing the policy hold a lop-sided advantage in lobbying spending and contributing to political campaigns.

In attendance were some of the major organizations on both sides of the debate. The biggest organizations in attendance in support of the legislation included Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com and two service providers breaking with their industry, DISH Network and Sprint. Opponents included AT&T, Verizon, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Communications Workers of America and the US Telecom Association. A number of public interest and consumer groups were also present.

According to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, net neutrality opponents represented at the meeting combined for $19.7 million in lobbying in the first quarter of 2010. Supporters, on the other hand, only combined for $4.7 million in first quarter lobbying expenses. (Organizations with undefined, or unidentifiable, positions combined for just under $1 million.)

The major campaign contributors opposed to net neutrality gave $6.9 million to political candidates from 2009-2010 while major contributors in support gave $2.2 million.

Both sides of the debate sent lobbyists with previous government experience into the closed-door meetings with the committees. Eight of the 31 organization representatives present at the meeting previously worked in Congress. Five of those eight previously worked for one of the two committees holding the meeting.

Lobbyists for net neutrality proponents had good connections to the lawmakers in the room. Google's Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce; Microsoft's Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation; Amazon.com sent lobbyist Emmett O'Keefe, a former staffer to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Two organizations in opposition sent lobbyists with similarly good connections: National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent James Assey, a former staffer on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and US Telecom Association sent Walter McCormick, another former staffer from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The meetings, held jointly by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, are the result of years of efforts by Congress to pass net neutrality legislation and recent developments involving the Federal Communications Commission's attempts to impose net neutrality rules the industry.

Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The FCC attempted to impose these rules after Comcast slowed service to certain users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC, stating that they did not have the regulatory authority to stop Comcast from blocking or slowing certain users of their broadband service.

Broadband providers have largely opposed the implementation of net neutrality rules, while Internet companies have largely backed them.

The committees are scheduled to hold another talk this Friday. The list of organizations and their representatives, provided by Tech Daily Dose, can be found below:

AT&T, Tim McKone Amazon, Emmett O'Keefe CDT, David Sohn Cisco, Jeff Campbell CompTel, Jerry James Consumers Union (CU), Joel Kelsey CTIA, Jot Carpenter CWA, Debbie Goldman Dish, David Goodfriend Free Press, Derek Turner Free State Foundation, Randolph May Google, Johanna Shelton ITI, Dean Garfield ITIF, Rob Atkinson Level 3, John Ryan MAP, Andy Schwartzman Microsoft, Paula Boyd NARUC, Brian O'Hara NASUCA, Brenda Pennington NCTA, James Assey NTCA, Tom Wacker OIC, Markham Erickson PFF, Dan Horowitz Phoenix Center, Larry Spiwak Public Knowledge, Ernesto Falcon Qwest, Melissa Newman RCA, Tim Donovan Sprint, Bill Barloon TIA, Grant Seiffert US Telecom, Walter McCormick Verizon, Peter Davidson

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from the past week:

Late last Friday, National Public Radio ran a piece by Andrea Seabrook about the Obama administration’s "Open Government Initiative," a three-part process to craft recommendations on open government. Seabrook quotes Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, saying the government should make it a priority to get the most important information up sooner. “And, in my mind, you got - priority data is the data that affects the public trust in its institutions. So, you know, personal financial disclosures, lobbying reports - there are many lobbying reports that are found in the Justice Department that have never seen the light of day. That is to say, they're not online - that being the definition of light of day in the 21st century.”

The second phase of the White House’s Open Government Initiative was a “brainstorming” session where the administration invited the public to submit ideas on how to achieve and sustain an unprecedented level of openness in government. The administration then encouraged participants to vote up or down on the ideas. They received 900 submissions and 33,000 votes on various ideas. House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (Ohio) submission to require Congress to honor a 72-hour public review period before voting on major spending bills ended up as one of the most popular, receiving nearly 1,000 votes. Roll Call (subscription required) and Federal Computer Week quote from Boehner’s statement noting Sunlight’s support for the 72-hour rule.

As normal, major press outlets depended on data from the Center for Responsive Politics to expose the power and influence of big money in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reported that in the first three months of 2009, the financial industry spent $27.6 million on lobbying and made $286,000 in campaign contributions to Congressional lawmakers. One industry goal was to get Congress to amend certain financial rules. So far, The Journal reported, they’ve succeeded in loosening one key accounting regulation and are working to get ride of it altogether. The Washington Post used CRP data to show the growing influence of tech titans Google, Microsoft, AT&T and Verizon. The same article mentions that the Center for Digital Democracy wrote to the White House protesting the Obama administration’s appointment of Google’s top lobbyist to the position of deputy technology officer. "We believe no special-interest connected person should assume a position of vital importance to the country's future," they wrote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s directive to enforce a new level of disclosure for official expenditures from the offices of House lawmakers and to post the documents online as soon as possible generated a number of mentions of Sunlight’s support for the move. National Journal’s “Tech Daily Dose” blog links to a blog post written by John Wonderlich, Sunlight’s policy director about the matter. They mention that Sunlight called for online disclosure of the expense records in December 2008 and again last week. T.W. Farnam, writing at The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” blog, noted Sunlight’s support for expenditure disclosure. He also quotes John saying “public accountability for member expenses comes with online access, which is a big change from an underground office.” CQ Politics’ Bart Jansen, in writing about Pelosi’s directive, quoted from John’s post, “Speaker Pelosi’s move should be interpreted as a recognition that public information — even potentially embarrassing information about how members spend public funds — should be truly accessible to the general public, which means online.”

In a post titled, “Visualizing how a dirty Congresscritter turned campaign contributions into earmarks,” Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow highlights and links to a blog post written by Paul Blumenthal, Sunlight’s senior writer, and a graphic created by Kerry Mitchell, sunlight’s creative director, that illustrates U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky’s (Indiana) connection to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, which represented many of the recipients of federal money earmarked by the congressman. Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor at The Washington Examiner, wrote in a blog post, “If this graphic doesn't persuade critics that earmarks are the key to the culture of corruption that dominates Congress, I don't know what else will.”

The Associated Press’ Andrew Miga wrote about how the spouses of congressional lawmakers and other politically-connected figures are coming under increasing scrutiny, especially those in high-profile, high-paying jobs. Miga quotes Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying conflicts can arise when both spouses work. "High-powered people are often likely to be married to other high-powered people."

Katharine Q. Seelye, writing at The New York Times’ “The Lede” blog, reported on the Supreme Court’s plans to redesign and update their Web site. She quotes from and links to a blog post written by Daniel Schuman, Sunlight's policy counsel, and a mock redesign of the Court's site created by Ali Felski, Sunlight Labs' senior designer. Fast Company's Cliff Kuang highlighted Ali's mockup and links to Daniel's post. Kuang also links to the mockups for USA.gov, FEC.gov, EPA.gov and Data.gov Sunlight Labs has created.

Thanks and see you next Friday!

Mike

Here is some big news (a couple days late)! United Kingdom Cabinet Office Minister (for digital engagement) and Member of Parliament Tom Watson, in a statement released a day or so ago, said the British government will accelerate the use of open source software in its public services. The government will now place open source software on a level playing field with proprietary software such as Windows, and they’ll adopt open source software "when it delivers best value for money." This is timely as the the Obama Administration begins to figure out how to use technology to reboot our government.

Whenever possible, the government has decided to avoid proprietary software for public services. The government will require its agencies to adopt open source software when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products" because of its "inherent flexibility." In a report on the announcement, the BBC quotes open source advocates as saying the shift from proprietary standards could save the government up to £600 million a year.

Watson said that the government had been experimenting with open source for the past five years, and that they’ve found that it can be best for taxpayers by providing better public services. Watson adds that they need to increase the pace of the open source approach:

1. We want to ensure that we continue to use the best possible solutions for public services at the best value for money; and that we pay a fair price for what we have to buy. 2. We want to share and re-use what the taxpayer has already purchased across the public sector – not just to avoid paying twice, but to reduce risks and to drive common, joined up solutions to the common needs of government. 3. We want to encourage innovation and innovators - inside Government by encouraging open source thinking, and outside Government by helping to develop a vibrant market. 4. We want to give leadership to the IT industry and to the wider economy to benefit from the information we generate and the software we develop in Government.

The BBC report quotes an open source support vendor as saying that the U.K. government's action plan “had ‘more teeth’ than policies being adopted in other countries because the plan was tied into policies regarding how IT managers procure new software.” Charles Arthur, writing at the guardian.co.uk’s Technology Blog, makes a somewhat cynical yet likely apt observation. “Not that this means that all those Windows boxen are going to be ending up on a scrapheap any time tomorrow, though you can bet Microsoft's salespeople to UK government will be on their phones right now talking to key people.”

Susie Adams, Microsoft's federal civilian and IGO chief technology officer, writing at Future Fed, the blog of Microsoft's federal division, posts five opportunities where federal agencies can implement Gov 2.0 tools in light of the Obama administration's vision. Briefly, those opportunities include:

Citizen services must meet the increasing expectations of citizens for interactivity, while increasing responsiveness and access to critical services, saving time and taxpayer dollars in the process. Citizen engagement includes an opportunity for outreach to, interaction with, and participation of key constituents in an open and collaborative way. Security-enhanced collaboration to connect staff through security-enhanced portals and to enable the exchange of data online. Helping secure data to simplify and optimize the identity management infrastructure and create trusted. * Compliance and accountability to meet the mounting pressure to better align an organization's performance and improve agency accountability to its citizens.

All solid ideas.

Adams is asking you to contribute to the discussion.  Be sure to check out her post and add your comments.